"[T]he belief that we are passing through a major transition in the historical trajectory of global socio-economic and geopolitical development is now pervasive. The dramatic upheaval, restructuring and destabilization of world capitalism; the increased globalization of production, finance, and even culture; the collapse of state socialism in Eastern and Central Europe; the resurgence of ethnic and sociopolitical localisms and regionalisms; the search for new national and international systems of socioeconomic regulation; the growing emphasis on environmentalism: these and other major developments of our times are interpreted by many to mark the waning of the old order and the crystallization of a new.  ...   [T]o accept the possibility that we stand on the brink of a new social epoch at least compels us to re-examine our accepted orthodoxies and theories. For there is in fact an undeniable feeling of disorientation and disruption in contemporary social science, a growing impatience to be moving on beyond the theoretical, methodological, and epistemological paradigms of the postwar period. Far from remaining immune from such issues, human geography has become inextricably caught up in this intellectual maelstrom, and in many respects has moved to the forefront in the conceptual reappraisal and exploration that has ensued."

- D. Gregory, R. Martin, and G. Smith. 1994. Introduction to: Human Geography: Society, Space and Social Science, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p. 2.

QUESTIONS:

Part I. (this is the meat of your paper)

Using the above quote, evaluate the substantive readings we have done so far this semester. Do they reflect a discipline on the hinge of history? Are they reconstructing social theory and human geography in new and innovative ways? Or are they just new ways of saying the same old arguments? That is, have they contributed to the "conceptual reappraisal" of social science and society more generally? If so, how? Justify your position.

Part II. (this is the dessert of your paper -- shorter, conclusion-oriented)

Using the insights you have gained from these readings, evaluate the above quote. Is there a "feeling of disorientation," or a "growing impatience" to move beyond the paradigms of the postwar period, for example? How is human geography "inextricably caught in this intellectual maelstrom"? Is human geography truly at any "forefronts"? Do you, ultimately, agree/disagree with Gregory, Martin and Smith? Justify your position.
 

Questions? e-mail me at mcope@buffalo.edu